Amid a fierce backlash to President Donald Trump’s decision to demolish the White House’s East Wing, administration officials have been eager to try to tamp down the outrage.
The White House says it is working to protect and preserve the historical artifacts found in the East Wing, the structure that has housed the Office of the First Lady since the 1940s. And First lady Melania Trump’s staff is currently working in the White House’s main building, according to a White House official.
But much may be lost in the rubble regardless — and not just physical items of note — according to Katherine Jellison, a historian at Ohio University and a scholar of first ladies.
“Those of us who do oral histories — interviewing former first ladies, their children, their staff members — a place like the East Wing is a physical structure that can spark those kinds of memories,” she said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine.
“It was my living nightmare last week when I saw those first visual images,” she said.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The White House says it’s working to properly archive items from the East Wing, but are you concerned with the demolition of the structure itself?
I’m very concerned, and everyone I know who studies first ladies and studies architectural history, people who study the history of the presidency, everyone in my orbit, is very concerned that all of this was done so quickly, without consulting with organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts.
Before we were even warned, professional historians and others, we saw bulldozers bringing the place down. Was due diligence done to preserve important records, important artifacts, important objects? We really don’t know. It is my worst fear coming to fruition.
The minute I heard that Mr. Trump had designs on building this ballroom structure, I was concerned about the historical integrity of the White House, and concerned about whether or not portions of the White House would be taken down to accommodate it, and what would happen to records and objects. It was my living nightmare last week when I saw those first visual images.
Can you think of any lesser-known historical tidbits about the East Wing that may be lost to history?
You may have seen this quotation from Betty Ford, that “If the West Wing is the mind of the nation, then the East Wing is the heart.”
Not only am I concerned about papers and artifacts, but without the structure there to trigger people’s memories that could be captured in oral histories — what happened in this particular room, do you remember how this room was decorated for Christmas or Easter? Those of us who do oral histories — interviewing former first ladies, their children, their staff members — a place like the East Wing is a physical structure that can spark those kinds of memories.
What is the historical significance of the East Wing and what did its expansion in 1942 signal about the role of first lady?
Before the expansion of the 1940s, it was more a terrace area, as opposed to a significant office building. And then when it was expanded in the early 1940s, we had the person who still arguably was our most active and activist first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt. She was a dynamo, in part because her husband was paralyzed and in a wheelchair, and things were certainly not accessible. So she needed to be someone who was very active and went places that her husband couldn’t go and would report back to him. But also she was motivated by her own desire to change American society.
Although the East Wing as we knew it was constructed to cover an underground bunker during World War II, it’s appropriate that this office building structure that was built on top of the bunker would be constructed at the time that Eleanor Roosevelt was first lady because she was such a strong presence in American society, so busy, so involved politically, and had a larger role than a first lady had ever had before, and set the precedent for first ladies being very high profile in American society and expected to play a very public, substantial role in their husband’s administration.
Some who have worked in the East Wing say it was actually pretty run down and in urgent need of upgrades. What’s your reaction to that?
There were concerns about cramped space for official functions, state dinners, etc. So it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that there needed to be some upgrading and some expansion. But in consultation with groups I mentioned who could say, “What are ways that we can keep the general character of this building, rather than knocking it down and starting from scratch.”
There has been a real public backlash to the destruction of the East Wing; why do you think that’s the case?
The secretive nature of this project — all of a sudden there’s a bulldozer and we’re seeing gaping holes in the White House — I think that is why maybe some people on the political right have been upset, because they just see that as a continuation of the deep state. On the political left, it’s a strong metaphor for the way they’ve always characterized both of Trump’s terms: This guy is tearing down all the norms. We now have a visual metaphor for that.
It’s just this dark visual that bothers people. Ever since the tear-down project began early last week, I have heard more than I’ve ever heard the term “the people’s house.” The American people own this house and care about this house, and are used to thinking about it and seeing it in a certain way, and to have this just ugly, empty space there now, it rubs people the wrong way. You know the old saying, “A picture paints 1000 words?” The picture of that empty space is painting thousands of words to Americans who, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, are seeing this as something they don’t like.
How do you think this demolition fits into the broader story about the current first lady’s role in the White House?
In what we might call the television age onward into the internet age — so from Jackie Kennedy forward — first ladies have been seen and heard from on a very regular basis. Mrs. Trump was low-profile in the first Trump administration, and even lower profile in the second Trump administration.
If we’re talking about metaphors, the fact that there’s not a first lady’s office in the now-absent East Wing sort of speaks to Melania Trump’s current role as first lady, which is largely unseen and unheard.
